From: malaise@magic.fr
Subject: Re: Legal usage of downward closures
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 03:52:39 -0700
Date: 2007-08-27T03:52:39-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1188211959.321967.187440@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1187284110.812863.280360@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii", Size: 583 bytes --]
On 16 août, 19:08, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 9:11 am, mala...@magic.fr wrote:
>
> The assignment statements are illegal. Every "anonymous access type"
> definition defines its own type; therefore Acc1 and Arg don't have the
> same type, and neither of those types is the same as Acc2_Type. GNAT
> has a bug if it accepts them.
>
> Furthermore, this would be illegal due to accessibility level rules:
>
> Acc2 := Acc_Type(Arg);
>
Thank you.
This confirms my initial understanding.
I have reported the problem to ACT.
Regards
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-27 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-16 16:11 Legal usage of downward closures malaise
2007-08-16 17:08 ` Adam Beneschan
2007-08-27 10:52 ` malaise [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox